JUDGMENT : SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. 1. This revisional application has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in G.R. Case No. 581 of 2013 arising out of Bidhannagar police station case No. 140 of 2013 dated 17.06.2013 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and for quashing the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 140 of 2013. In the said order dated 03.07.2013 (hereinafter called as impugned order) learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 354, I.P.C. against the accused (petitioner herein). 2. Inter alia, the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is an abuse of process of justice as the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. without application of judicial mind although the ingredients of said section were not established on the materials brought on record by the investigating police officer with the charge-sheet in the proceedings of G.R. 140 of 2013. 3. I have gone through the copies of first information report (in short FIR), charge-sheet, hand sketch map with index of the place of occurrence, statements of two witnesses who are cousin sister and mother of the victim as well as informant recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C) recorded by the investigating police officer, statement of the victim lady recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and the certified copy of the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 which have been annexed to the revisional application. 4. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a famous gynaecologist and the allegations brought against him do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 354, I.P.C. He cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. He further argued that acceding consent for her gynaecological examination the alleged victim allowed the accused petitioner for her examination and the accused petitioner examined her which cannot be considered as outraging the modesty of the alleged victim by a prudent man. 5. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. He further argued that acceding consent for her gynaecological examination the alleged victim allowed the accused petitioner for her examination and the accused petitioner examined her which cannot be considered as outraging the modesty of the alleged victim by a prudent man. 5. Learned advocate for the state has argued that the materials placed before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate are sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. and no miscarriage of justice has been caused due to passing the impugned order. 6. On 17.06.2013 a written information was lodged at Bidhannagar police station by the informant alleging that on 15.06.2013 she went to the petitioner gynaecologist for consultation. At the time of her examination the petitioner made physically inappropriate and indecent actions towards her which was derogatory and disrespectful towards a woman’s dignity and definitely was unnecessary for her examination and thereby the petitioner outraged her modesty. The cousin sister and the mother of the victim lady corroborated her in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The victim lady stated a vivid description of the alleged incident before learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of recording her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. She stated that in the absence of any lady attendant the accompanying cousin sister of the lady expressed her intention to remain present at the place and time of victim’s examination but the petitioner doctor told her presence was unnecessary. The bed of the patient was within screen wall. Petitioner removed the upper garments and trouser of the victim and started bad pressure on her belly and touched her breast and nipple. Then he pressed both the breasts and enquired whether she felt pain or not. Getting negative answer he enquired about her extra hair growth and removing her trouser placed his hand on her female genital which was clothed by her panty and asked whether she had hair growth in any other part of her body. Being shocked she could not answer. Since the petitioner talked in a very low voice it could not be heard by victim’s cousin sister. 7. Being shocked she could not answer. Since the petitioner talked in a very low voice it could not be heard by victim’s cousin sister. 7. At this stage it is to be considered as to whether face value of the above materials constitute any offence under Section 354, I.P.C. and if so, whether the said allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man can even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused petitioner following the principles discussed in paragraph-102 first and fifth illustration in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra). Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code reads as – “354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”. 8. ‘Criminal force’ has been defined in Section 350 of the I.P.C. and ‘assault’ has been defined in Section 351 of the I.P.C. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that the alleged victim voluntarily allowed the petitioner for her gynaecological examination and so it cannot be said that the petitioner did anything on her without her consent and therefore does not attract the definition of ‘criminal force’. He further argued that there was no intention of the petitioner to use criminal force on the alleged victim and in the alleged incident the petitioner was the best person who knew the method of gynaecological examination and the alleged victim cannot say about the necessity or otherwise of a particular examination. 10. Having considered the annexures to the revisional application, the arguments advanced before me and following the statutory provisions as well as the legal principles discussed in Bhajan Lal case (supra) I like to consider the prima facie case of the prosecution case first. In my opinion, this is not the stage of consideration of defence case which requires consideration in a trial. In my opinion, this is not the stage of consideration of defence case which requires consideration in a trial. From the face value of the FIR and statement of victim lady recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. prima facie it appears that the victim alleged inappropriate and indecent actions of petitioner were done on her which was derogatory and disrespectful towards dignity and such actions constitute the offence of her outrage of modesty. It is true that a gynaecologist is competent person to decide how a lady patient should have been examined. Similarly, it cannot be said that a lady is incompetent to say whether any particular gesture of his doctor touching her nipples and pressing her breasts and placing of doctor’s palm on her female genitals were necessary to diagnose her problems or not. She is the person who had direct knowledge about the intention of the doctor for the actions applied on her. In statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. the victim lady stated that any how she resisted the petitioner from his attempt to put off her trouser. As such, prima facie, it cannot be said that she had consent in the acts done and gesture made by petitioner on her. From the materials brought by the investigating agency before the learned Magistrate in support of the charge-sheet it cannot be said, at this stage that the ingredients of ‘assault’ and ‘criminal force’ were not attracted and in my opinion, face value of the totality of those materials prima facie constitute an offence under Section 354, I.P.C. for taking cognizance and for proceeding against the accused petitioner. Whether the allegations against the petitioner are true or not will be decided in trial. The materials brought on record are not sufficient to quash a criminal proceeding or to set aside the impugned order. 11. In the light of my observations made above, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by learned Magistrate in G.R. Case No. 140 of 2013 taking cognizance of the offence against the accused-petitioner. Therefore, I find and hold that this revisional application is devoid of merits. 12. It is, however, made clear that nothing of the observations made in this judgment shall influence the learned Magistrate in trial and the trial shall be held independently on all points involved in the case. 13. As a result, this revisional application is dismissed. Therefore, I find and hold that this revisional application is devoid of merits. 12. It is, however, made clear that nothing of the observations made in this judgment shall influence the learned Magistrate in trial and the trial shall be held independently on all points involved in the case. 13. As a result, this revisional application is dismissed. Interim order of stay of the proceedings in G.R. 140 of 2013 passed earlier, stands vacated. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated from criminal section to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar with a direction to dispose of the G.R. Case No. 140 of 2013 expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of communication of this judgment.